Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ludhiana I,...

Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana v. Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana

High Court 06 Dec 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana v. Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana
Date of order
06 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana v. Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITA No. 521 of 2006 Date of decision: 6.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana -----Appellant Vs. Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. This appeal was admitted to consider following substantialquestion of law raised on behalf of the revenue arising out of orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench ‘A’,Chandigarh in ITA No.636/Chandi/2005 dated 28.4.2006, for theassessment year 2002-03:- “Whether on the facts and law, the Hon’ble Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in holding that theDEPB was an income derived from the Industrialundertaking, ignoring the fact that in whatever form theexport incentive/benefit flowed to the respondentresulting in some extra profit, the source of DEPB wasthe particular scheme of the Government and not thebusiness of industrial undertaking?” We have heard leaner counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the issue is covered against the assessee by judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Liberty India v. CIT, (2009) 317 ITR 218. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is allowed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 6, 2010‘gs’ (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan